“Softwire Hub & Spoke L2TPv2 Framework” Update draft-ietf-softwire-hs-framework-l2tpv2 Carlos Pignataro Bruno Stevant Jean-Francois Tremblay Bill Storer Maria Alice Dos Santos IETF 74, March 2009, San Francisco, CA, USA

Goals This is an update on the details of the latest document changes (from -10 to -12) Status Document currently in IESG Evaluation Updates Document entered Publication Requested at revision -10 Initially 4 DISCUSS positions and some COMMENTs Produced rev -11 and rev -12 Currently, 2 DISCUSSes: Ops (1 out of 3 issues) and Sec

Revision 10 -> 11 Throughout the doc Section 2.1 “NATs” Review some lowercase RFC2119 words Section 2.1 “NATs” Clarified L2TPv2 address selection behavior effect on NAT filtering types (added new paragraph) Section 5.1.1 “Tunnel Establishment” Rewordings to clarify Required vs. Optional AVPs Added explicit definition of “Required” and “Optional” AVPs from RFC2661, previously implicit Added explanation of why the doc says L2TPv2 AVPs “SHOULD NOT” be hidden (added 1 para)

Revision 10 -> 11 (cont) Section 5.1.4 “Additional L2TPv2 Considerations” New single-paragraph section, with UDP Design Guidelines considerations from [RFC5405] Section 9 “Considerations for Maintenance and Statistics” Paragraph explicitly allowing informational protocol elements

Revision 10 -> 11 (cont) Section 10 “Security Considerations” Explicitly Allow other auth protocols, already in Section 5.2.3 (just mention also in Security Considerations) Explicit mention of AVP hiding, already in the doc. (just mention also in Security Considerations) Editorials Pointer to “voluntary tunneling” description Added Abbreviations Removed the acronym “OAM” Updated references

Revision 11 -> 12 Section 4 “Standardization Status” Re-Title “References to standardization documents” Initial paragraph explaining context for the Section Section 5 “Softwire Establishment” Added the optional Ipsec / IKEv1 Step to Figures 9 and 10

Revision 11 -> 12 (cont) Section 10 “Security Considerations” More Verbose description of applicable and additional Security Considerations More explicit reference to IPsec procedures: IKEv1: “[RFC3193] MUST be supported” (deployed technology must be very strongly considered [RFC4925]) IKEv2: softwire-security-requirements solution “needs to be considered for future phases” Editorials Use "Hub and Spoke“ throughout the doc

WIP for Rev -13 Clarifications on Section 8, “Considerations about RADIUS Integration”

EOF Thanks !